Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU> Mon, 07 July 2008 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0273A6876; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32853A6876 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E2q6p2VIHGYI for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (BISCAYNE-ONE-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B3D3A67CE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by biscayne-one-station.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.9.2) with ESMTP id m67MCgBf016463; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:12:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from closure.thunk.org (c-98-216-98-217.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [98.216.98.217]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id m67MCajI007066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:12:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tytso by closure.thunk.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <tytso@mit.edu>) id 1KFywm-0005W6-ET; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:12:36 -0400
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:12:36 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
To: Willie Gillespie <wgillespie+ietf@es2eng.com>
Subject: Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?
Message-ID: <20080707221236.GZ31490@mit.edu>
References: <20080707133210.AWH55905@m1.imap-partners.net> <20080707203828.GC2300@zod.isi.edu> <20080707210130.GT31490@mit.edu> <20080707211347.GB2222@zod.isi.edu> <20080707214214.GX31490@mit.edu> <487290FA.8020702@es2eng.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <487290FA.8020702@es2eng.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 03:56:10PM -0600, Willie Gillespie wrote:
>
> With your hk.ibm.com example, do you have any search lines in your  
> /etc/resolv.conf file that would be automatically appending?

Of course!  That was my point about why "http://hk" or "ping hk" is
not going to be terribly reliable.  If you think people are going to
type "http://hk.", I can probably come up with Web 2.0 startup that
you could fund, if you're not interested in purchasing a certain
bridge in New York City...  :-)

						- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf